Elimination of inactive list for Thursday night games?

[CGI_Ram]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ders-no-inactive-players-for-thursday-nights/

Posted by Mike Florio on March 1, 2015, 10:05 AM EST

NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said Saturday that the Competition Committee considered the proper handling of rosters for Thursday games.

Per a league source, the possible solution is the removal of the inactive list for Thursday Night Football. If that happens, teams would dress all 53 players on Thursday night games, with no players on the inactive list.

It doesn’t mean that all 53 players would dress for every team in each Thursday night game; players too injured to play but not so injured to be on injured reserve won’t dress.

Presumably, this approach would apply to all Thursday games, including the trio of games played on the fourth Thursday in November.

It’s unclear whether the Competition Committee will recommend elimination of the inactive list for Thursday days. Ultimately, the owners must vote on any changes to game-day rosters, with at least 24 of them agreeing.

 

[CodeMonkey]

As much as I want football on more days of the week than just Sunday and Monday night, Thursday football just doesn't seem to be working.

 

[brokeu91]

In all honesty, I think EVERY game should be this way. What's the point of having a 53 man roster when you can only really use 46?

 

[jjab360]

The main thing keeping Thursday games from being competitive is exhaustion playing on a short week. This is a partial solution.

 

[CGI_Ram]

As much as I want football on more days of the week than just Sunday and Monday night, Thursday football just doesn't seem to be working.

I don't like it either.

 

[A55VA6]

In all honesty, I think EVERY game should be this way. What's the point of having a 53 man roster when you can only really use 46?

Agreed. I've always thought all 53 should be available if needed.

 

[Legatron4]

A real solution to the shitty Thursday night games is to make the teams playing on Thursday the late week games instead of Monday. And then proceed to put those specific teams on a bye the next week so their not playing 3 days later. It's really not that difficult for them to do it either.

So for example, the Rams play week one on a Sunday and then they play week two the following Thursday and the next week will be their bye week.

 

[FRO]

Why not dress everybody for every game ?

 

[yrba1]

With regards to game scheduling, they'll go where the ratings blossom. Thursday Night games are rather abysmal in that category and I hope the scrap that idea next season.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

A real solution to the crappy Thursday night games is to make the teams playing on Thursday the late week games instead of Monday. And then proceed to put those specific teams on a bye the next week so their not playing 3 days later. It's really not that difficult for them to do it either.

So for example, the Rams play week one on a Sunday and then they play week two the following Thursday and the next week will be their bye week.

This is what they should do.

 

[Legatron4]

This is what they should do.

Well it just makes sense to me. Make Thursday night the end of the week instead of the beginning. Start Thursday night games in week 3 so the first bye week can be those teams. Except the NFL wants money so it will never happen.

 

[CoachO]

Agreed. I've always thought all 53 should be available if needed.

This has been discussed many times before.

The reason there is an inactive list, is because of the competitive disadvantage teams have if they allow ALL 53 players to be active, and one team has a number of players injured. In theory, by having to limit the roster with a list of INactive players, it balances the scales in terms of healthy players who can contribute on game day.

It also prevents teams from being forced into stashing players on injured reserve when they aren't seriously injured. While the rule may not seem to make sense to some, it is actually very effective in making sure that teams don't enter games shorthanded.

An argument can be made that the rosters need to be bigger in general, which in turn would allow for more active players for each game. But IMO, removing the "inactive list" would be a mistake.

 

[A55VA6]

This has been discussed many times before.

The reason there is an inactive list, is because of the competitive disadvantage teams have if they allow ALL 53 players to be active, and one team has a number of players injured. In theory, by having to limit the roster with a list of INactive players, it balances the scales in terms of healthy players who can contribute on game day.

It also prevents teams from being forced into stashing players on injured reserve when they aren't seriously injured. While the rule may not seem to make sense to some, it is actually very effective in making sure that teams don't enter games shorthanded.

An argument can be made that the rosters need to be bigger in general, which in turn would allow for more active players for each game. But IMO, removing the "inactive list" would be a mistake.

Yeah, that's understandable. Makes sense to keep that rule in place.

I definitely like the idea of a slightly larger roster allowing more active players though.